ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45374   May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA<br /><br />068 Phil 264

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45374. May 27, 1939.]

    MANUEL RODRIGUES, Applicant-Appellant, v. DANIEL TIRONA ET AL., Oppositors-Appellees.

    Pompeyo Diaz for Appellant.

    Emiliano T. Tirona and Demetrio B. Encarnacion for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. REGISTRATION OF LANDS; AMENDMENT OF PLAN OF A REGISTERED LAND; PRESCRIPTION. — The amendment of the appellees’ certificate of title, if presently decreed, as a result of the segregation of a portion of the land described in their certificate, would in truth mean the revision and amendment of their decree of registration, and such revision would be illegal in view of the lapse of more than nineteen years from the issuance of the decree. Whether, by reason of fraud or otherwise, any legal action has prescribed to review, alter or amend the decree of registration issued in favor of the appellees.

    2. ID.; WRIT OF POSSESSION. — Under the provisions of section 17 of the Land Registration Act, it is undeniable that the court of first instance, in a land registration case, may enforce its orders and decisions as in civil cases, and may issue a writ of possession. But considering that the writ of possession, in land registration cases, is only issued against the defeated oppositors, and in the present case the appellant M. R. was not a party in the case as an oppositor against the registration applied for by the appellees, the writ of possession does not lie against him. The proper and adequate remedy in this case is an ordinary action. (Manuel V8. Rosauro, 56 Phil., 365; Manlapas and Tolentino V8. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298.)


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    Two questions are involved in this appeal: the first is whether after nineteen years from the issuance of a decree of registration, the plan of the registered land may be amended so as to segregate therefrom a portion claimed by an adjoining owner; and the second is whether after the lapse of the same period of time, a writ of possession of the registered land may be issued.

    Lot No. 1127 of the appellant Manuel Rodriguez and lot No. 1128 of the appellee Daniel Tirona were surveyed in 1909 and 1910, respectively.

    It is alleged that on March 18, 1911, both parties signed an agreement made in a public document, whereby they agreed that the boundary and at the same time monument of their respective lands be an embankment (pilapil) found south of the land of the herein appellant. Both parties made a mutual conveyance of the portion of land which has been taken from their respective properties as a result of the survey.

    In 1915 the cadastral hearing in the Municipality of Cavite took place. Neither of the parties amended the plan of the said two lots to determine the dividing line between them. Neither did they file the alleged agreement in court for the purpose of enforcing the same.

    On March 18, 1915, lot 1128 was adjudicated to the spouses Daniel Tirona (appellee) and Felisa Osorio; on October 28, 1916, the corresponding decree was issued. and on November 20th of the same year. the original title was issued in favor of said spouses Daniel Tirona and Felisa Osorio, now deceased; and in her place, her only son, Rodolfo Tirona (the other appellee).

    Nineteen years thereafter, that is, on December 17, 1935, the appellant put in a motion, which was supplemented by another dated January 8, 1936, wherein he asked the court to approve the subdivision plan filed by him of lot 1128 of the appellees, which lot was subdivided into two: lot 1128-A containing 11,575 square meters, which is the portion claimed by the appellant, and lot 1128-B which belongs to the appellee Tirona according to the appellant. The portion claimed, which is triangular in form, is north the embankment (pilapil) aforementioned, and is included in land described in the original certificate of title issued to the spouses Daniel Tirona and Felisa Osorio. The appellant’s claim consists in that under the agreement the embankment is the true dividing line between both lands and not that fixed in the plan which served as the basis for the issuance of the decree and the original certificate of title in favor of the spouses Tirona. The appellees opposed the motion and the court denied it by its order of January 17, 1936 which was appealed.

    From this statement of facts it will be seen that the appellant’s claim to the indicated portion of land is utterly indefensible, even assuming as true, which the appellees deny, that there had been a valid agreement fixing the embankment (pilapil) as the dividing line between the appellant’s land and that of the appellees. In view of the fact that the plans, both of the appellant and of the appellee Tirona, have not been amended after the execution of the aforesaid agreement; that the appellant has filed no opposition to the appellee’s application for registration in order to exclude from the latter’s plan any portion of land which, under the agreement, belonged to the appellant, and that the appellant has neither filed a petition for review within the statutory period of one year to set aside the decree of registration, it is obvious that the appellant has lost his right, if he had any, to ask for the amendment of the plan of the appellees’ land, or to claim the portion of land which he alleged to be his by virtue of the said agreement.

    The appellant contends that the only purpose of his motion was the approval of the subdivision plan of lot 1128; the cancellation of the original certificate of title to said lot, and the issuance in lieu thereof of two new certificates of title, one in the name of the appellant for the portion of land claimed by him, and another for the remaining land in favor of the appellees. He also alleges that he does not seek the revision of the decree of registration referring to said lot 1128, because his motion is not based upon any fraud on the part of the appellees, but upon the fact that, through error, the original certificate of title in favor of the appellees includes a land belonging to the movant, hence, the said certificate should be corrected.

    We do not believe that there is any error in the original certificate of title issued to the appellees because the said certificate, with respect to the description of the land, is strictly in accordance with the decree of registration, and the decree of registration is in accordance with the description of the appellees’ plan. What happened is the omission or negligence on the part of the appellant to ask for the amendment of his own plan and that of the appellees so as to avail himself of his rights under the agreement allegedly executed by and between both parties. The amendment of the appellees’ certificate of title, if presently decreed, as a result of the segregation of a portion of the land described in their certificate, would in truth mean the revision and amendment of their decree of registration, and such revision would be illegal in view of the lapse of more than nineteen years from the issuance of the decree. Whether by reason of fraud or otherwise, we believe that any legal action has prescribed to review, alter or amend the decree of registration issued in favor of the appellees.

    In De los Reyes v. Paterno (34 Phil., 420), this court held that the plaintiff, having failed to present his objection to the registration of the parcel of land there in question, or to question the validity of such registration within a period of one year after the certificate of registration had been issued, had forever lost his right in said land, even granting that he had any right therein.

    The other appealed order is that issued by the court on February 13, 1936, whereby it held that it had jurisdiction to pass upon the motion of the appellees dated January the 6th.

    While the motion of the appellant to amend the plan of the appellees was pending resolution, the latter, in turn, filed the said motion of January 6th, wherein they alleged that the appellant Manuel Rodriguez and Juan Salcedo and their tenants were molesting the appellees in the possession of their lot 1128 and were occupying the greater part of said lot. They, therefore, asked the Court to issue a writ of possession in favor of said movants so that they could freely hold the said portions illegally occupied by the appellant, which portions are indicated in the relocation plan of lot 1128 and are marked as lot A containing 10,764 square meters and lot B containing 817 square meters.

    The appellant Manuel Rodriguez opposed the motion and the Court denied it by its order of January 17, 1936. But upon the subsequent filing of an amended motion, the court by its order of February 13, 1936, held itself competent and with jurisdiction to pass upon the said amended motion for writ of possession, from which order Manuel Rodriguez appealed.

    Under the provisions of section 17 of the Land Registration Act, it is undeniable that the court of first instance, in a land registration case, may enforce its orders and decisions as in civil cases, and may issue a writ of possession. But considering that the writ of possession, in land registration cases, is only issued against the defeated oppositors, and in the present case the appellant Manuel Rodriguez was not a party in the case as an oppositor against the registration applied for by the appellees, the writ of possession does not lie against him. The proper and adequate remedy in this case is an ordinary action. (Manuel v. Rosauro, 56 Phil., 365; Manlapas and Tolentino v. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298.)

    The appealed order of January 17, 1936, is affirmed and that of February 13, 1936 is reversed, without costs. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

    LAUREL, J.:


    I concur in the result.

    MORAN, J.:


    I concur in the dispositive part.

    G.R. No. 45374   May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA<br /><br />068 Phil 264


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED